Adam Afriyie: It is quite clear that our colleges were driven by the Government to spend a fortune on new building plans. Due to economic mismanagement, the Government now say that they do not have the cash to deliver on their side of the bargain. As a result, hard-pressed colleges up and down the country have lost huge sums of their own money. I recently visited a victim of the crisis, Matthew Boulton college in Birmingham, Erdington, and it stands to lose tens of millions of pounds. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer the Minister, who is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box now and apologise to the students, his college and his constituents. The offer is an open offer. Will he take the opportunity?

John Baron: Given that answer, may I raise the issue of bureaucracy? According to the Association of Colleges, the funding system for FE colleges is too slow and too many rules restrict the flow of money between funding pots. Given the fall in FE enrolments that the Minister outlined, would not it be wise for the Government to cut bureaucracy and red tape instead of increasing it by creating new quangos?

Si�n Simon: In 2008-09, the Learning and Skills Council FE capital budget of 547 million helped to support the development of 253 projects. The LSC has supported more than 700 projects at nearly 330 colleges, with only 42 colleges not benefiting from any capital support. More than half of the college estate has been modernised, and we remain committed to the FE capital investment programme. The 2009 Budget announced that an additional 300 million of capital funding will be made available in the current spending review period. Also, for planning purposes, we are working on the basis of a provisional programme budget of 300 million a year in the next spending review, with the final level of investment to be confirmed during that review.

John Denham: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made clear, he has already made substantial provision in his diary to meet colleges, so I am sure that he can add another one to the list. It is important to do so. We are working as hard as we can, with the additional investment that we have from the Budget, to bring as much certainty and clarity to colleges as we possibly can. That is what the LSC has been charged with doing, and it will be the LSC rather than Ministers that ultimately decides the priority programme.
	I make the point that 10 years ago there was no FE capital budget. The hon. Member for Havant told the Association of Colleges that it could not rely on the Conservatives even to commit to the current level of spending on capital. Although the current situation is very difficult, let us not forget that more than 330 colleges have already benefited from capital investment under this Government, and the programme already included 253 active projects. Just yesterday I was able to go to Northampton college with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and cut the first sod on the 80 million project that is taking place there. A great deal of very valuable investment is taking place in the FE estate thanks to this Government.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House on running the marathon on Sunday and, more to the point, completing it. He has asked for my cheque, but I think that the whole House will approve of his raising money for the Army Benevolent Fund.
	In my first exchange in January with the right hon. and learned Lady in my role as shadow Leader of the House, I raised the Government's apparent reluctance to debate the UK's preparedness for a flu pandemic. As I said at the time, Conservative Members had been calling for such a debate for well over two years. Although we appreciate the Health Secretary's willingness to update the Househe has done that twice this weekmay we, none the less, have a full debate, perhaps on 14 May, as Members of Parliament should have an opportunity to discuss the matter more widely than the strict limitations of a statement permit?
	Two reports have today been published on the problems in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. None the less, may we have a ministerial statement on those reports, because, in our view, they do not reduce in any way the need for an independent public inquiry?
	I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her willingness to listen to the House last week when we asked about the investigation into privilege in the wake of the arrest of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). What is the status of the two potential committees of inquiry that have been suggested, and when might she be able to give a statement to the House on the proposed way forward?
	Yesterday, the House soundly defeated the Government's policy on the Gurkhas. However, there is another group of people whom the Government treat with deep contempt: the policyholders of Equitable Life. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm what I have heardthat, a full three months after the Chief Secretary to the Treasury established an independent review into supposed ex gratia payments for those who have lost out from Equitable Life's collapse, the man leading the investigation, Sir John Chadwick, has not yet been in contact with Equitable Life or any representatives of those affected? Does not that further underline the speciousness of the review and the Government's intention to bury the issue? When will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers come to the House to give us a statement about their plans to compensateI use that word deliberately; I mean compensatepolicyholders, as the ombudsman demanded?
	Will the right hon. and learned Lady also give us a statement on the status of the Government's misguided policy on ID cards? On Tuesday, it was reported that ainevitably unnamedgroup of senior Cabinet Ministers were lobbying the Prime Minister to drop the scheme altogether. Later, the former Home Secretary who gave birth to the idea said that he favoured using biometric passports instead. After telling us for the past yearand even before thatthat ID cards are essential for national security, the Government are clearly somewhat split on the issue. After this week's U-turns on Titan prisons and national databases, perhaps the Prime Minister will return to YouTube and give us a U-turn on ID cards, too.
	May we also have a debate on our relations with Poland, in which we could take the opportunity to congratulate the Polish Prime Minister on his forthright honesty and sage advice to our Prime Minister on the rigours of fiscal probity and economic management?
	May I congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady on the publication of her leadership manifesto in the guise of the Equality Bill? I know that she is very proud of it, but can she perhaps explain to the House why she will not be entrusted with steering it through on Second Reading? Will she confirm that, in tune with the stardom that she seeks, when the Bill was launched at a press conference earlier this week, she was asked to sign copies of it, as though it were a celebrity photograph? In the spirit of our regular exchanges across the Floor of the House, rather than going on to eBay, may I please have one too?

David Heath: I am disappointed that there will be no Liberal Democrat Supply days in the next two weeks, as they seem to be going rather well at the moment. Following the historic win after yesterday's debate, I should like genuinely to thank the Minister for Borders and Immigration for responding to my request and coming back to the House to make a statement yesterday evening. That was the right thing to do. May I ask the Leader of the House a specific question relating to that? The Minister made it clear that he would publishhis wordrevised proposals for Gurkha settlement before the recess, but I do not think that publishing will be sufficient. The proposals need to be presented to the House, and Members must have an opportunity to express an opinion on the Government's solution. I hope that we will have either a statement or a debate on that issue.
	Today, the Metropolitan Police Authority is discussing the demonstrations associated with G20 and the police response to them. It is extraordinary that the House has had no opportunity to discuss those matters yet, either by means of a statement from the Home Secretary or of a debate. May we have an opportunity for such a discussion?
	One of the changes in the machinery of government that the Prime Minister introduced when he became Prime Minister was to split the education Department into two. The two Departments are now competing to see which can be the more incompetent. We have had the issues relating to college buildings, to sixth-form numbers and to SATs, and we have had the unseemly dispute with the former chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. May we have a debate on how we are running education in this country, and on why those two Departments have become so shambolic?
	Pigs have been uppermost in our thoughts over the past couple of weeks, mainly because of pig flu. I welcome the Secretary of State for Health's statement and his undertaking to keep the House updated, and the Leader of the House's offer of a debate. That is exactly the right thing to do. However, there seems to be another contagion around the place, and I would call it pig's ear syndrome. The Prime Minister seems to turn everything he touches into a pig's ear at the moment. Whether it is the economy, the issue of the Gurkhas, Members' allowances or even appearing on YouTube, he has not dealt with any of these issues with great competence. Perhaps what we need is a therapeutic debatea cathartic debateon the conduct and performance of the Prime Minister, so that Labour Members can have the opportunity to say in the Chamber what they are saying in the corridors and the Tea Room, and it is not desperately complimentary about the Prime Minister.

Jim Sheridan: Can the Leader of the House assist those Members who wish to come to work by public transport? The pavements and roads around Parliament square have been dug up, fenced off and left abandoned, resulting in significant traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians. Will she therefore make representations to the appropriate authorities to find out how long this will last? [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.]

David Taylor: Can we have a debate about early-day motion 1297, which I have co-sponsored?
	 [That this House, observing that the intention of the founding Act of t he Bank of England in 1694 was 'that their Majesties' subjects may not be op pressed by the said corporation' , notes that those subjects have been  seriously oppressed by the Bank' s failure to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system over which it presides; and therefore suggests that this oppression should be dealt with as the Act provides by fines three times the value of the abusive trading.]
	The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) is not in his place, but he will recall that the early-day motion deals with a failure to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system. When community banking is turned into casino banking, when training is in sales and not in banking, and when over-centralised decision-taking has relegated local staff to box-ticking with no room at all for initiative, we need to review the ethics of our banking system.

John Bercow: Can we have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House on the important report of the Rose review on the primary school curriculum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), amidst the enjoyable badinage in which invariably specialises, declined or omitted to mention?

Lorely Burt: Can we have a debate on the iniquitous tax, IR35, which for the past 10 years has caused chaos and confusion for freelancers in this country? The tax is ambiguous and confusing, and it does not bring any money into the Treasury, so can we please debate it?

Mark Pritchard: Can we have an urgent debate on women's rights? The Leader of the House will know that, like her, I have been a champion of women's rights over many years. I am not talking about the half-baked plans in the Equality Bill; I wish us to discuss, in particular, the extension of sharia council powers, which, in some circumstances, discriminate against some women in some ethnic minority communities.

Michael Penning: May I say to the Leader of the House that she cannot keep running away from a debate on Equitable Life? Her deputy is a long runner, but this is a marathon that the Government are not going to win. We need a debate on this, because thousands of people have lost out. They need the compensation that they deserve and that they have rightly been told they will get. Can we have a debate on Equitable Life soon, before more of these people, sadly, die off and do not get the compensation that they deserve?

Harriet Harman: If the right hon. Gentleman has issues that he would like the Modernisation Committee to address, perhaps he could write to me or just tell me what issues he thinks it should turn its attention towards. The Modernisation Committee has worked well in partnership with the Procedure Committee and, on many issues, the Procedure Committee has taken things forward.

Mark Hunter: The Christie charity, which supports the world famous Christie cancer care centre in Manchester, stands to lose some 6.5 million as a result of the Icelandic banking collapse. As there are some 30 charities that stand to lose more than 50 million for the same reason, is it not time that we had a debate on the Government's handling of the situation?

Harriet Harman: There will always be occasions on which the Home Office decides on appeal that it will withdraw its case. I have more immigration cases coming through my constituency office than any other Member, and I know that there has been a big improvement in the promptness, accuracy and courtesy with which the Home Office deals with cases, and we should put that on the record. There will always be cases in which things go wrong, including human error or facts that are discovered later in the process that mean that a decision has to be changed. Overall, however, Home Office staff are doing a good and important job, and improving in how they do it.

David Miliband: I am not sure whether I can compete with that number of questions and answers in the next 45 minutes, but we will try our best.
	With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the civilian crisis in Sri Lanka. I am very grateful to all Members of the House who contributed to yesterday's important debate on the subject. I returned this morning from a visit to Sir Lanka with the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. I regret very much that the Sri Lankan authorities declined to allow our Swedish counterpart, Carl Bildt, to join us. Our visit to Sri Lanka was prompted by our increasing concern and that of many international colleagues, as well as of many Members of this House, for civilians in the north of the country, and in particular for the plight of the civilian Tamil population.
	There are in fact two crises: that of the civilians trapped in the conflict zone as the Government enter the final stage of their fight with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam terrorists, and that of the thousands of civilians who have crossed over the front line in recent days. The purpose of the visit was threefold: first, to highlight the need to bring the conflict to an end in a way that minimises further civilian casualties; secondly, to press the case for the humanitarian relief effort to be ratcheted up, as the United Nations and the European Union have been calling for; and, thirdly, to make clear the need for a long-term political settlement that meets the aspirations of all communities in Sri Lanka.
	Foreign Minister Kouchner and I met President Rajapaksa, Foreign Minister Bogollagama, the leader of the Opposition, Tamil and Muslim mainstream politicians and a series of permanent secretaries of the relevant Government Departments. We were briefed by the heads of the main United Nations agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We also visited a Government-run camp for internally displaced people at Vavuniya and visited a field hospital donated by the French Government. I heard a number of personal testimonies from recent arrivals in the camp. I am grateful for the way in which the Sri Lankan Government facilitated our visit.
	The fog of war makes it difficult to be certain of the facts of the present situation. This is compounded by the lack of access for international agencies and the media. I heard widely different estimates of the number of civilians still trapped in the conflict zone. Government estimates ranged from 6,000 to 20,000 people. The UN, the ICRC and most others believe that there are at least 50,000. Some thought that the number could be as high as 100,000. Whatever the truth, it is clear that significant numbers remain, living under appalling conditions, under-nourished and in fear for their lives. I heard reports of civilians hiding in trenches to escape the shelling and of horrific injuries. I also spoke to people in the internally displaced person camps who recounted how the LTTE had forced them to stay in the so-called no-fire zone against their will and shot at them when they tried to flee.
	We were told that 30 tonnes of food were delivered to the conflict zone between 1 April and 27 April, apparently enough to feed 60,000 people for just one day. A further ship delivered limited supplies during our visit. The ICRC has been able to send in only very limited medical supplies, despite having plentiful stocks in Sri Lanka. The block on deliveries of food and medical supplies hinges on security. To deliver these essentials to those innocent civilians trapped in the conflict zone, there needs to be safety. Ships take time to unload and the pauses provided by the Sri Lankan Government have not been long enough. As the House knows, the Government of Sri Lanka declared an end to so-called combat operations on 27 April. The President and Defence Secretary confirmed this to me personally and in definite terms. These commitments must be upheld.
	In our discussions with the President and the Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Kouchner and I made it clear that the protection of civilians must be paramount. We emphasised that if the LTTE had any heart at all, it would let the civilians leave the conflict zone. As G8 Foreign Ministers said in their statement on 25 April, we were also very clear that the time for the conflict to end is now.
	We were briefed in detail by the Sri Lankan authorities on their humanitarian relief efforts outside the conflict zone. We welcomed this exchange of information, the extensive work that was under way and the commitments that the Government of Sri Lanka made. Nevertheless, some of what we were told was in contradiction to the information given to us by the international humanitarian agencies.
	Let me go through the facts as we understand them. According to the UN, 161,765 Tamils have left the conflict zone since October last year, including an estimated 119,000 in the past 10 days. This is very welcome, but the numbers have seriously challenged the Sri Lankan authorities. The UN agencies we spoke to were frustrated that the Government appear to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of them and others who are trying to assist the Government in dealing with this crisis. The agencies lack any access to IDPs until the IDPs have already been through the preliminary screening process. They do not have full access to the camps, and visas and authorisations to move people and goods into and around the country are too limited. Meanwhile, people are not being allowed out of the camps and many families have been separated. Some men, alleged to be LTTE cadres, have been taken from families and placed in so-called rehabilitation camps. All that reinforces the need for full and unhindered access by the UN and other agencies.
	We therefore in the course of our visit returned again and again in our talks to five specific points in respect of the humanitarian situation: first, the need for visas to be issued swiftly to international humanitarian staff; secondly, the subject of travel permits for staff working on approved projects inside Sri Lanka; thirdly, the need for full access to IDPs as soon as they have crossed the front line and the monitoring of all stages of screening; fourthly, the need for a proper resettlement programme with specific deadlines to fulfil the Government's commitment to have 80 per cent. of IDPs resettled by year's end; and, fifthly, to allow the distribution of sufficient food and medicine to meet the needs of civilians trapped in the conflict zone. We were promised intensive follow-up by the Sri Lankan Government and we will continue to engage with them on all these issues.
	At present, the Sri Lankan Government are engaged in a war without witness in the north of the country. Civilians have fled the terror of the LTTE, but are afraid of what awaits them at the hands of the Government and unsure whether they will ever be allowed home. We were given assurances by the Sri Lankan Government that they had nothing to hide. We responded that it could therefore only be to the benefit of the Sri Lankan people and the Sri Lankan Government to work with the international community in a fully transparent way. By giving UN agencies and international non-governmental organisations the freedom to operate to capacity in all areas, the Sri Lankan Government would not only bring much needed relief to thousands of traumatised or injured people but attract greater confidence from the international community.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) will take up the invitation of President Rajapaksa and visit Sri Lanka as part of a cross-party group of MPs next week and will pursue these points. The other members of the group will be the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Buckingham (John Bercow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar). I share the gratitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that they have agreed to take part in this important visit at short notice. I will be visiting New York on 11 May for UN Security Council business and will pursue further UN involvement in the crisis. I will be discussing with Secretary Clinton tonight, as well as with other like-minded colleagues, how we can work more closely together to find a way to bring the fighting to a stop.
	No one should underestimate the murderous damage done to Sri Lanka over the last 26 years by the LTTE, or the sheer hatred felt for its leadership. That is recognised in the international community, but while terrorist organisations work by killing people, democratic governments exist to protect them. That is why the fighting in Sri Lanka must end now. The LTTE is apparently cornered and trapped, having inflicted grievous suffering on the people of Sri Lanka, primarily Sinhalese and Tamil, but also Muslims. How the conflict is ended will have a direct bearing on the prospects for long-term peace in the country. The Government there must win the peace as well as the war. That will be the continuing focus of this Government's activity, hand in hand with international partners, in the days and weeks ahead.

David Miliband: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue. I wish that a large majority of the UN Security Council supported action on the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) made the rather important point when I met him last week that, when he was in New York last week, all the demonstrations happening there were outside the buildings of countries that supported UN action. I fear that that number is not very large and certainly not large enough, but she can be assured that I will continue to work with all countries around the world on the issue.
	The first question that my right hon. Friend asked was about the commitment to end so-called combat operations, or heavy mortar fire and the use of naval and air power. What I and Foreign Minister Kouchner said to the President and what we repeated to the Foreign Minister was that there could be no greater word of honour placed by the President and Defence Secretary of a country to two visiting Foreign Ministers but that the use of such weaponry will end. That is why, given that the stakes are so high on that word being its bond, we ensure that we bottom out all reports before we comment on them. The consequences could not be more serious for a country to promise that it will not use heavy weaponry and then to do so. That is why all reports or rumours need to be investigated. Equally, it is incumbent on me to be careful before making accusations that are not wholly well founded and well researched.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will not start giving percentages, marks out of 10 or grades of confidence, but those fives issues are much higher on the agenda today than they were on Tuesday, before Foreign Minister Kouchner and I went. Tragically, for some Tamil civilians it is too late. That should drive us forward, to ensure that no time is lost on following through on these issues. It is very important that we recognise that democratic Governments are held to higher standards than terrorist organisations. I made that point in my statement. It recurs in a number of parts of the world where democratic Governments may feel frustration at the limits that are imposed on them in how they conduct their operations, but those limits are imposed for very good reason: if we do not defend the values that we are meant to uphold in the way that we attack terrorism, we fall to standards that we should not even consider. The fact that the LTTE is preventing civilians from leaving the combat zone says everything that we need to know about where its interests lie, but it is vital that the Government of Sri Lanka rise above thatthey need to find a way that builds a peace as well as wins the war, and we are trying to work with them to achieve that.

Members' Allowances

Harriet Harman: This is an opportunity for the House to debate matters that all hon. Members care about and know to be important. None of us wants a situation in which someone can be an MP only if they have enough money to afford the costs that inevitably come with a constituency that is far away from London. That is why we all agree that we must have financial recognition of the cost of working in London and a constituency.
	We all want to be sure that we can do our work effectively on behalf of our constituents, which is why we agree that it is necessary to have a team of staff so that we can do our work. We all recognise that Parliament has legitimacy because each of us is democratically elected, but we also know that the institution of Parliament needs to command public confidence, and it is evident that the public do not have confidence in our allowance system. That lack of confidence undermines not only the institution of the House of Commons, but every one of us Members.
	We made changes in July last year and January this year. I think that those changes did a great deal to put our allowances on a better footing and to make the audit of our claims fully robust. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who worked hard to shape those changes. However, it is clear that the lack of public confidence is such that we need to go further. The Prime Minister has said this, and the leaders of the major Opposition parties have also called for immediate action. Today's debate and the motions before the House offer us an opportunity to take that action.
	The first motion will enable the House to endorse the inquiry that the Committee on Standards in Public Life is conducting at the request of the Prime Minister. It is a major step for the House to endorse a thorough and external review of the structure of our allowance system by an independent body, and we should all be grateful to Sir Chris Kelly and his committee for undertaking it.

David Clelland: Before we move off the point about giving guidance to the Kelly Committeethat, I take it, is what the first motion doesthere seems to be a contradiction in the first motion. Paragraph (2) recognises that Members of Parliament
	undertake parliamentary duties both in Westminster and their constituency.
	Indeed they also undertake such duties outside Westminster and their constituency, which is not mentioned. The motion goes on to say that
	any new arrangements...ought to...take account of hon. Members' attendance at Westminster.
	Why is that?

Harriet Harman: I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me. I will answer his question as I get on with my speech. The first motion invites the House to express the opinion that new arrangements should take account of attendance at Westminster, be transparent and accountable, and reduce the cost to the public. The amendment in the name of the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), welcomes the inquiry but deletes that opinion, invites the Kelly committee to get on with its work, and asks that we consider the recommendations as soon as they have been made. In the consultation paper that Sir Christopher Kelly recently issued, Review of MPs' ExpensesIssues and Questions, he said that he will indeed consider whether the payment of allowances should be linked to attendance and a flat-rate daily payment. In that consultation paper, the Committee on Standards in Public Life says, on the issue of a flat-rate allowance, that
	The Committee will consider this proposal alongside other options for reforming the current system.
	Sir Christopher Kelly also says that he will look at how we ensure best value for the taxpayer. In light of that, it does not seem necessary for me to divide the House on the amendment, and I am minded to accept it. The important thing is that we endorse the Kelly inquiry, that it presses on with its work, and that we take the further steps in the other resolutions, to which I now turn.

Patrick Cormack: not a car crash, but a point for Mr. Speaker. We have just heard that the Leader of the House is to commend that the House, without a vote, endorses an amendment that says that Sir Christopher Kelly's report should be waited for. She went on to say that the House should, in effect, pre-empt Sir Christopher's decisions in a number of particulars. Surely that is inconsistent, and surely all the other motions are predicated on the amendment that is to be carried.

Alan Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In light of the clarification in your ruling, it would be open to the House, having agreed to amendment (j), to realise that it could give effect to an equivalent amendment for all the other motions by simply defeating the remaining motions, would it not?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Harriet Harman: All right; I give way to the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Harriet Harman: I shall not give way any more. Members might [ Interruption. ] No. Members will have an opportunity to disagree with my argument in their own speeches, but I ask them at least to give me the opportunity to set forward why I think that we should take that action now.
	In that case, I think

Alan Duncan: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady, because I know that she is under a lot of pressure from all parts of the House. On the logic of her position, however, the first motion talks about Members' allowances in general, refers to
	any new arrangements relating to Members' allowances,
	and is, therefore, a complete, all-embracing point about allowances in general. So, if the reference to allowances in general is referred to Sir Christopher Kelly's committee, surely it is only logical and honest to say that the other motions should be dropped.

Harriet Harman: As I have said, whatever the Kelly report recommends on the additional costs allowance, we should decide now that the distinction between inner and outer-London Members is no longer sustainable. The House will have a chance to vote on that, and, in that case, I think it only fair that our outer-London colleagues know that they will be put on the same footing as us in inner London, so that they have timeuntil April next yearto make changes to their arrangements if they need to. So, we should get on and make that decision.
	There is also an issue in respect of the accommodation allowance for those Ministerscurrently the Prime Minister and the Chancellorwho use London grace and favour accommodation.

Harriet Harman: I was dealing with the question of grace and favour accommodation. The Prime Minister has already decided that no Minister using grace and favour accommodation in London will be able to claim the accommodation allowance. That will be done by amending the ministerial code and will be effective from 1 July. There are mechanisms for complaints about a breach of the ministerial code, so such complaints would not be on the same track as other complaints about allowances.
	The third motion would, by requiring Members to declare all their earnings from outside employment, enable the Kelly review to make its proposals about outside employment with full knowledge of its extent. I believe that the motion is necessary to assist the Kelly committee. An amendment proposes that there would be no need to register the amount of time a Member spends earning money on outside interests, but I think that, if the public elect a Member, they have a right to know how much time that Member devotes to making money rather than to representing their constituents. So, I am not minded to accept the amendment.
	The motion would help Sir Christopher to make decisions about outside interests in the full knowledge of their extent; otherwise, he would be asked to make decisions without fully knowing about outside interests because they would not be fully registered. If the House agrees with the motion, however, everything will be out in the open and he will be able to make recommendations, having been put fully in the picture.
	The fourth motion is about our staff. The reality is that the staff allowance is nothing to do with our salary; it is to pay our staff. Yet, because it is accounted for as part of our allowance, the public see it as part of our pay, which it is not.

Harriet Harman: I am concluding my comments.
	I hope that we can do as much as possible today by agreement. It would be good if the public could see that we are able to discuss these issues in a way that is calm and measured, and looks to defend the public interest. We all want the reputation of the House to be restored; today is an opportunity to make a start on that. If the House does as we ask, we will have endorsed the Kelly inquiry, sorted out the outer London allowances, ensured that all claims are backed with receipts, ensured that the public can see all MPs' outside earnings, and taken steps to ensure that it is clear that our staff are employed on parliamentary business. That will all go some way to restoring the public confidence that this House needs and, I believe, deserves. I commend the motions to the House.

Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not? I want to race on and let others speak.
	A much bigger issue is staff. I am very perturbed by what I sense to be the concern of all our staff about what the proposal would mean. It is not entirely logical that everything that is thought to be wrong with who employs whom, and what their employment contract is, would automatically be solved by creating a massive human resources and personnel department in the House of Commons. The Leader of the House says in one motion that we have to cut the cost of politics. I have seen, and the House will know, how much it costs to publish 1 million redacted receipts. If on 1 July, or whenever, 3,000 contracts suddenly have to be transferred to the House of Commons, the resource implications will be absolutely massive. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House is assiduous in ensuring that he knows what is going on in all the highways and byways of the parliamentary estate, and with its people and premises and so on. He went to a meeting with staff yesterday, and I think that he would readily admit that the tone about what they thought might be in prospect was not a happy one.

Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend reinforce on behalf of the Commission, the assurance that the Leader of the House gave that, as part of the process, the Commission will engage with and take evidence from representatives of our staff in their various guises and ensure that that evidence is reported properly to the House before any decisions are made?

Clive Efford: I absolutely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Does he therefore think we should not have to wait to be told to do what is right? Getting rid of the outer-London allowance for MPs is the right thing to do. Publishing details of second incomes that may influence hon. Members' activities in this House or how they vote is also the right thing to do in the interests of openness and scrutiny of this House. We do not need anyone to tell us how to do that; we should get on and do it now. Does he agree?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am a little disappointed to sense that these matters could be left in their entirety to the committee. I regret what I take to be the current view of the Conservative Front-Bench team, because there was a sense of urgency a few weeks ago. That was clear from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam said at the time. He put forward proposalsthey might not command the support of every Member, but they have mineto reduce the additional costs allowance to cover only basic accommodation costs such as rent, council tax and utility bills, and nothing else. There would be none of this John Lewis list or any other incidentals. That system would be clearly understood by the public, and we could act quickly to adopt it. I understand that other Members have different views, however. I also understand that the Leader of the Opposition put forward proposals of his own. They were not entirely irreconcilable with our own, and there was a suspicion that we might have reached an agreement. I shall come back to the provenance of the arrangements in a moment, because the subject is instructive about how the Government do business.
	What are the concerns that the public have been expressing very loudly in recent weeks? If any Member has not heard them, they cannot have talked to many of their constituents recently, because these are real concerns. People are talking about inappropriate purchases being made at the taxpayer's expense. Whether such purchases are typical, common or fair is neither here nor therethat is what people are concerned about. They are also concerned about the abuse of definition in relation to our identifying our principal place of residence, and about the fact that, for some hon. Members, it seems appropriate to change that definition every now and then, according to the potential income involved. That gives rise to a great deal of concern. Concern is also being expressed about unnecessary accommodation, and the possibility that people are claiming for accommodation that they do not need because they have alternative arrangements of one kind or another.
	The public cannot understand why we cannot deal with these issues. Frankly, I cannot understand why we cannot deal with them even under the present system, because it is clearly stated on the forms we sign every time we submit a claim that the costs have been occasioned by parliamentary duties, although that definition seems to be remarkable wide in some cases. Nevertheless, that is the question that the public are asking.

David Heath: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is perhaps a counsel of perfection to say that we will ever get away from that entirely. Every time we see a clear abuse of the system in the pages of a newspaper, it affects not only the person who has been named but every single Member of the House. Every Member of the House is considered to be a crook. That is unacceptable, and it is something that we have to deal with as a matter of urgency.
	Given the public concern, it was nothing short of an act of genius for the Prime Minister to come up with a solution that absolutely failed to meet those concerns. The process has been quite extraordinary. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam put forward his proposals and, whether people agreed with them or not, they were real proposals that addressed the issues and would have made a real difference to the way the House is perceived. The Leader of the Opposition also put forward proper proposals. They were not identical to ours, but they addressed the same issues and tried to find a way forward. At that time, we had nothing at all from the Prime Minister.
	The last time we debated this matter, the Prime Minister did nothing whatever to get the proposals from the House of Commons Commission through; he did not even bother to turn up. He showed no sense of leadership. This time, he waited until the very last moment, then reluctantly agreed, when pushed several times by my right hon. Friend and by the Leader of the Opposition, that it would be a good idea to have a meeting of the three leaders to see whether there was a possibility of consensus. Yet before that meeting, which he did nothing to arrange, had even happened, he came up with a set of proposals that had apparently been written on the back of a fag packet. He did not appear to have discussed them with members of his own parliamentary party. He put them out to the press before he even had the agreement of the Cabinet, which emerged to find them already in the public domain.
	As an afterthought, the Prime Minister rang round the leaders of the other parties to try to arrange a meeting that very evening, because he thought it would be a good idea to get their imprimatur for his proposals. At that meeting, he was completely belligerent and refused to accept any amendment to his perfect proposals. And he wonders why there is no consensus! Then, last week, he made his announcement to the public in a YouTube appearance that had all the awfulness of a David Brent performance. It was quite astonishingand this was the Prime Minister addressing an issue that affects the House in an extremely important way.
	The Prime Minister proposed an attendance allowance, but would it address the question of transparency? No. It would provide cash in hand with no accountability. Would it be related to real costs? No, because it would be given to every single Member of Parliament, irrespective of their needs or arrangements. Would it even be workable? No, it could not have worked within the present arrangements. The Prime Minister failed to understand that, in proposing a system that already exists for the European Parliamentdoesn't it work wonderfully there!he was proposing that the gravy train of Europe should come to Westminster. Incidentally, that also happens at the other end of the corridor. We hear apocryphal stories of noble Members leaving the Rolls-Royce running outside while they nip in to sign in, before going home having claimed their allowance for the day. Is that the system we want? No. That is why it had to be rejected. Eventually the message even got through to the bunker, and it was not put on the Order Paper today. There is, however, a vestigial reference to it in motion 1I will return to that in a momentbecause the Prime Minister can never be completely gainsaid. He must have his way, so if he cannot have it through a vote in the House, he must find another alternative.
	Let me go through the matters for consideration. The grace and favour issues are not there, and I have explained why that is wholly unacceptable and should be remedied. I hope that the House can agree to some motionsour motion 6, which is a technical motion, and motion 5 on evidence of expenditure, which adds to transparency and accountability.
	Motion 3 deals with the registration of interests. I know that that matter is a bit difficult, but it is a basic principle. I have thought about the questions that it has been suggested would arise. Whether people are being paid far too much for too little in their outside employment or are spending too long at their outside employment are legitimate questions to ask Members of the House. If they are not full-time Members of the House, what are they doing with their time? How does their loyalty to their constituents square with their loyalty to their shareholders or employers?

Patrick Cormack: I completely agree. I have tabled an amendment, which Mr. Speaker has selected, that at the very least would allow staff to choose whether they should be individually or centrally employed. We shall see whether we vote on that later, because I want to hear what people have got to say, but it would be quite wrong to rush through such a change.
	Earlier, I listened to the remarks made on behalf of the House of Commons Commission by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). I used to be a member of the Commission and, despite my regard for him, I was not wholly reassured by what he said. It is important that whatever we do should not apply until the beginning of the next Parliament because there really ought to be a proper transitional period.
	I now come to an issue that I know is not a comfortable one, but it is one that has to be addressed, and a specific motion is down for it. It concerns outside earnings. Already we have a register and those of us who have any outside earnings register them without any qualms or worries. The register covers what we do, the bands of money that we earn, and for whom we do these things. We are moving down a very slippery slope here because we are moving towards a situation in which, over a generation, this House will become an assembly of full-time, permanent politicians who have no connection with or relationship with the outside world.
	No one could suggest for a minute that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is not an assiduous, full-time Member of Parliament. I know full well that what she does in her constituency is deeply appreciated by her constituents and they are not happy that she is leaving them, but she has found time to write books.

Patrick Cormack: Very good books, as she rightly says. The fact that she has done that is of no concern to anyone else. It enriches not only her personallywell, I sincerely hope that it doesbut those for whom she works and whom she represents.
	I should like to delete the reference to hours in motion 3. There is a lovely story about the painter Whistler. He was once in a court case accused of knocking off his pictures in an hour or half an hour, and he said, That picture does not represent an hour's work but a lifetime's experience. Often a Member of Parliament is in a position to give advice and may not take very long to give that advice, but it is of great value to those to whom it is given. As long as the register records the interest, that is fine.
	If that advice is given within a context that involves the Member's parliamentary duties, I do not mind extra details being given, but we have already made an exception for the profession of which the Leader of the House is an illustrious adornment. Barristers and solicitors will be allowed to withhold certain information. That is right and proper in view of the confidential relationship between the lawyer and the client, but I do not see why there has to be this intrusiveness in respect of everyone who has outside earnings. I should like to encourage people to do things outside the House.
	I am in my office in the House, as a number of hon. Members present know, never later than 8 in the morning and frequently before half-past 7, as I was this morning, and I very rarely leave much before 10 at night. I give a service in my constituency of which I am quietly proud. If I can find time to do certain other things, to write articles and other things, that is for me and it is my concern. I hope that the House will take a broad-minded view and realise that it will impoverish this place if we merely have people who come in from a political background to be politicians and nothing else and have no contact with those outside in the world that we serve.
	I end where I began. There is no higher calling than representing a constituency in Parliament. When I came here, I regarded it as a vocation and a way of life. Of course we must do all that we can to ensure that the public recognise that and we must not abuse the system, but we must provide the proper tools so that we can indeed adequately do the job.

Paddy Tipping: The Leader of the House made the case for change, and she is right: change is necessary; it is vital, and we need to get on with it. The Prime Minister, all the leaders of the political parties and most Members recognise that, put simply, we cannot go on like this. The mood of the country is detached from the political classes. There is a view abroad that we who represent the people do not understand how they live and the difficulties they face. That is unhealthy; it is not good for democracy; and it is bad for the House. So, change is necessary and we need to achieve it quickly. The issue for the House today is simply this: how do we best do it?
	I was delighted that the Leader of the House accepted the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The way forward is an independent, comprehensive review. We have tried to do that ourselves in the past but have not been successful. Any effort that we take will not have the support of the public outsidewe need that independent element. We need to be aware that the tone out there is corrosive; it undermines our position, and it undermines our self-confidence. I know from talking to colleagues that a number of them are now disillusioned and are thinking of not standing at the next general election. It is bad for the public; it is bad for the House.
	We must pass these matters to Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life and ask them to do a good and thorough job, but there are caveats: we must tell Sir Christopher's committee speed is necessary. That said, he will have to look at the issue comprehensively and carefully and we will have to look carefully at his recommendations. The House is sovereign, but I would be extremely surprised if the House did not take those recommendations, even if they are uncomfortable, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) just said.

Tim Boswell: The short answer is that we need to tell the truth about what is happening. Above all, we do not need to distort our arrangements and our relationship with our staff to meet a tabloid headline. Sometimes we have to take a stand.
	I should like to raise one or two more general points that are, in a sense, indicators or markers to the Committee on Standards in Public Life; my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who is seated on my right, is a member of the committee. Even if he is not formally participating in the debate, I hope that he will take notice. The committee should take note of issues of shared expenditure. Lots of us have complicated lives. We do things that are partly political and partly done for our constituents. We do things at home that are part of our office activity, and partly done on our personal account. We benefit from accommodation that is both personal to usit is where we need to stay for the night when we are at Westminster lateand shared by members of our families. That whole area needs sorting out.
	It has been suggested, in some of the more draconian ideas, that Members capital profits on their flats should be clawed back. I dare say that there is a capital profit on the flat that I have occupied since 1989, but I have not worked it out, as it is going down by the moment. However, there is no basis in principle that is clear. It is quite difficult to contemplate any sensible clawback from current or former Members. How, for example, will we run that past the property safeguards under the European convention on human rights? If we are to do that kind of thing, we have to declare what we need to do very clearly. We should start the system in a way that ensures that everyone is clear.
	My third point goes wider than the debate. Nobody has used the words legitimate expectation in this debate, but the Prime Minister's idea of cutting off the allowance year after four months and completely recasting it was absurd. I have never claimed the cost of the kitchen that I bought for my flat from public funds, but had I done so, would it have been all right to do so on 1 May, and all wrong on 1 August? That is not the right way to proceed. That is why I am so anxious that matters should be referred to the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life and properly phased in.
	I shall conclude, because many Members want to speak. We should say that the best defence against abusesthere have been abuses, and, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said, there is a need for change; I can see thatis not yet more box-ticking, or even more rigorous accountancy. I accept that there have been failures in that regard, and we need to remove areas of gross difficulty. Those failures are to some extent, however, the function of a system that is too complicated. The best safeguard is the conscience of individual Members in acting responsibly.

Tim Boswell: That is hugely beneficial, but nobody should ever think that mere compliance with the rules represents the sufficient discharge of their responsibilities to the House or to their constituents. We must be absolutely straight in our dealings, but we must largely be the judges of that. We need independent input, first, on advice, because I am not sure that we have always received as much advice as would have been appropriate; and, secondly, on the right audit, filter and transparency, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said.
	In doing all that, we must acknowledge, as the principles of the inquiry that the Commission has launched acknowledge, that we need adequate support in our work. However, it is wrong to keep legislating bit by bit, headline by headline. I am very struck by the remark in the issues and questions document from the Commission. Paragraph 1.12 states that
	the reforms so far have been restricted in focus and piecemeal in implementation. We believe it is time to conduct an open, thorough and independent public inquiry to lay this matter to rest for the foreseeable future and remove the corrosive effect it is having on public trust in the integrity of our politicians.
	That seems to be the right message. We need to do it, but we need to do it together and coherently.
	I mentioned at the beginning that I am deeply attached to this place. It is still the best way of running a society, and I do not want to leave it to a toxic combination of the affluent, who do not need the support, and the anoraks, who do not claim the support. We need to acknowledge change, but we must do so in a properly considered, independently validated, measured and coherent way.

Paul Beresford: There is another interesting repercussion. It appears that the third motion is intended to stop directorships with huge fees. However, some professionals have to practice to maintain their profession. Therefore, if on a Sunday morning, instead of playing golf or sitting reading the news of the Government's disasters

Barry Sheerman: There is always a certain reluctance to talk about these matters, and I do not think that I have spoken in the House about Members' pay and allowances before. It is worth looking back at the history. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was right in what he said; indeed, we tabled an amendment to the motion, but it was not selected for discussion. I ask us all to have a sense of the history of these arrangements because we have long failed to grapple with them.
	We all know that the central problem is the reluctance over many years to increase the salary of Members of Parliament to a sufficient level. We also know that Governments of all political persuasions have said, It's all right. we'll give you some help through the expenses you can claim. The mileage allowance is an example. I remember when Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister there was a rebellion among Conservative Members because she would not implement the pay rise that had been recommended by an independent inquiry. What happened? The next thing we knew was that we had the largest ever increase in mileage allowance, as long as we had a car of more than 2,000 cc. We all remember that, and we all remember the subsequent changes in the types of cars in the car park beneath the House.
	There has been tension over these matters for a long time. Another tension exists, to which the House should pay careful attention. It is all very well for an independent body to decide how we should be paid and what our allowances should be, but we all know that normally, as soon as the committees have reported to the House, whichever Prime Minister has been in power at the time has said, Oh, this is very embarrassing. We can't possibly be seen to increase the salary of Members of Parliament. Prime Ministers of all parties have failed to agree to the recommendations, and arrangements have been made with the Whips to water them down or modify them in some way. That was why my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and I tabled our amendment today.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made a clear point in this regard, but he did not take the final step which would be for the leaders of the three main parties to say that whatever happens with the Kelly report, they will accept it. That is the way to get real independence in the House and to free ourselves from the sort of criticism that we have brought on ourselves from the public. The challenge from Back-Bench Members is to tell the leaders of our individual parties that that is what we need.
	We have done that before, even on policy issues. I remind the House of the agreement on to the Dearing inquiry into higher education. Even in the run-up to an election, the leaders of the three main parties said that they would hold off making decisions on the future of higher education until Lord Dearing had published his report. All three parties stuck to that agreement and we got a rather better policy initiative than we otherwise would.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that a point of order is involved. I have made one ruling. Every hon. Member must be responsible for what they say in this Chamber and, short of an attack on or criticism of another hon. or right hon. Member, it is a matter of judgment on which every one of us will be held accountable. I have not heard anything that causes me to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order, but he is responsible for what he says and he must consider carefully what he does say.

John Mann: One underlying theme resonates throughout this debate, sometimes spoken, sometimes not, and I hope that the Kelly committee will determine its views on this absolutely. I am talking about the pay of Members of this House. I take a different view from many of those who have suggested that Members of Parliament are badly paid. I think that the level of remuneration is appropriate, but we will all have a dilemma if we hand over pay to an outside body. The principle of elected Members not determining their own pay is a higher and more important principle than the actual level of that pay. I hope that the level of pay would not go up if it were determined independently in the future. I also hope that all hon. Members would agree that if pay levels are to be determined independently, whether after Kelly or at some later stage, we should not then be able to vote on that decision and nor should Governments be able to do so in the future. That independence should be retained.
	I am also strongly of the view that the level of expenses should be determined externally and not internally by the House. Two aspects of the terminology used in this debate cloud it dangerously. The first is the use of the word allowances. There is a fundamental difference between allowances and expenses, and the fact that Members are able to use the two words interchangeably demonstrates the confusion of this debate. I hope that the Kelly review will look at expenses and will determine that the concept of allowances has been part of the problem. If its view is that MPs are underpaid, it should say so, but that should not be hidden in allowances. The pretext of the allowance system that has been built up is precisely why people regard the issue with horror.
	The second term that has been used inaccurately today is abuse. There have been abuses, but it can be argued that even those examples were overuses rather than abuses, because they took place within the system. That is why those examples have not been referred to authorities outside the House such as, for example, the police. They have been examples of overuse, not abuse. The so-called abuses that we have seen in recent monthssometimes several are revealed in one weekendare overuses of the system. There is a question about whether such usage is right or moral, which constituents will throw at all of us, but it fell within the system. Of course, the more extravagant our usage of the system, the more extreme the criticism, and that may well be appropriate, but it is the system itself that is rotten.
	I shall give some theoretical examples. Under the system at the moment, it is possiblealthough the House refuses to release the informationfor some 150 Members to claim an overnight allowance not for coming to Parliament, but for living in their constituency. Is that right? The Leader of the Opposition may be one such person. There is no question of abuse of the system, and nothing is being hidden, but is that right? Is it right that 24,000 of mortgage interest can be claimed by a wealthy Member of Parliament so that they can have an expensive house in a constituency that is not that far away from London? It would be appropriate for the Kelly committee to consider that issue. There are dilemmas, and legitimate arguments could be made on both sides. However, that is precisely the kind of dilemma that the committee should be considering.
	A similar question arises about family members and spouses. Of course, it would be straightforward to say, That should be banned, but arrangements might well occur that were not in the public domain. Is that any different or any better? Honourable single Members might marry previously unmarried members of staff. Should those members of staff immediately be barred from working? That dilemma must be addressed by any simple solution.
	It is much easier to deal with some of the other points. For example, under the current system it is possible for a Member who has owned their house in totality with no mortgage for many years to take out a mortgage and to claim that money back. Is that justified at the expense of the taxpayer? It seems to me that it is not. Let me give another, more difficult examplealthough I do not think that it is overly difficult. A Member might own a house at value x and claim the full amount. If the allowance goes up significantly, is it right that that Member, in the course of their duties, should feel that it is appropriate to buy a bigger, more expensive property and to claim the full amount? It seems to me, as the taxpayer is paying, that that is not appropriate. However, both of those examples have been allowed within the system, particularly since the big increase in the allowance in 2001. Such things are a use of the system and it seems to me that we need to get real about it.
	If one maximised mortgage interest at 24,000 with a standard mortgage nine months ago, at today's mortgage rates 16,000 would now be available. Is it justified that the maximum allowance should be based at 24,000at 222? It seems to me that that is not justified. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has left his seat, but there is a varied view on what is a reasonable standard of living and a reasonable property. There will never be any agreement here or among any other group of 600-odd members of the British public about what is reasonable. However, the British public perceive that 24,000 is not reasonable in order to carry out such duties. That is what underlies public concern, from what I hear.

John Bercow: As I think that the hon. Gentleman knows, I am from that wing of the Tory party that pays mortgages and buys its own furniture. I always have been. However, I understand the distinction that he is making between expenses and allowances, and his focus on what might be described, for want of a better term, as contrived mortgages. Might one means by which to tackle this problem be for Sir Christopher to consider the imposition of a time limita span over which people could claimthat could not be exceeded, so that people could not claim for 40 years, long after most people out there would cease to have had a mortgage?

Natascha Engel: I want to speak today, more briefly than I had intended, about the fact that we cannot take any decision on expenses because we clearly have a vested interest and therefore a conflict of interest in the financial matters that concern us.
	Today's system has evolved over decades, and the problems should have been resolved decades ago. They have not been resolved because there is an assumption that we are honourable Members, but clearly the world outside this Chamber disagrees. We are getting into an ever bigger mess. We need to find today a credible and workable solution; the consequences of not doing so are potentially devastating.
	When I knock on doors and hold surgeries, people say the same thing over and again: politicians are all the same, we are in it for ourselves, we are lining our pockets and our snouts are firmly in the trough. The most frightening thing they say, in large numbers, is that they are not going to vote. The only people who benefit from people's disengagement are hate-preaching, anti-political parties such as the British National party. The BNP exploits the failure of mainstream politics. All mainstream politicians should take responsibility for that failure.
	We have had plenty of opportunities and we have missed every one. Across the political spectrum, we must now accept that we have failed to do anything about it, and we must seek some professional help from an independent and credible public servant. Sir Christopher Kelly should be allowed to get on with his review of MPs' expenses without interference from us, and his findings should be binding on the House.
	We have recently received an invitation from Sir Christopher to send submissions to his committee for consideration. Attached to the invitation was an issues and questions document that outlined the scope of the inquiry. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) has just alluded to the seven principles of public life laid out on the first page of the document. It is worth in the brief time that I have left naming those principles one by one. The first is selflessness. As holders of public office, we should act only in the public interest. We should not do so to gain financial or material benefits for ourselves, our family or our friends. The interpretation of what constitutes the public interest might be open for political debate, but the principle of not being motivated by greed or to advance the interests of our family or friends is straightforward.
	The second principle is integrity. We should not place ourselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that want to influence us. Being a politician, especially a Member of Parliament, is a privilege. There are not many of us in the country, and it is easy to become seduced by power and its trappings. We must remember why we are hereto serve and not to be served. By maintaining our integrity and remembering what we were elected to do, we can go some way towards doing the right thing.
	The other principles are objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. I want briefly to talk about openness. We should have not have tried to exempt ourselves from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, just to avoid personal embarrassment at the publication of our receipts. We took the decision to make those claims against the public purse; we must state why we made those claims, by explaining to people what we do. If people are still unhappy about the claims that we have made, we must take the consequences. At the moment, we retreat and hide. The only right response is to accept that scrutiny and be more open, not less. We should explain our actions and not hope that the media storm will blow over.
	The publication of the receipts will be very embarrassing. Every last tiny receipt will be used in every piece of election literature for ever, and every current MP will be affected. It might seem unfair, but that has happened because, until now, we have been working in a system that is not open. It is now our duty as incumbent MPs who are responsible for the current system to do something about it for the generation that follows us, because that generation will be given a chance to uphold the principles of openness in public life.

Angela Watkinson: I am heartily sick of reading that we are collectively guilty before being proved innocent of dishonesty, greed and corruption. That is deeply offensive to the vast majority of MPs who have integrity and work long and hard in the interests of their constituents. The focus of the debate is entirely on what we receive, or, as the papers describe it so delightfully, what we trouser or pocket: other professionals receive remuneration in return for their services, but MPs have their snouts in the trough, as though we do not work at all and are entitled to nothing. No mention whatever is made of the demands of the job, the long hours, the seven day working week, the complexity and range of knowledge required or the level of responsibility.
	There is the constituency job and the one in Westminster. We forget weekends as others know them. We are on duty in a multitude of different ways, being involved in our local communities and organisations, and we are happy to be so. But heads must rollthe fourth estate demands itand the tumbrels are rumbling. Outer London Members have been chosen as the sacrificial lambs, and we are relatively small in number and we may not exert much pulling power as a group.
	Upminster is just about as far from Westminster as one can get and still be in London. After working for 12 to 15 hours, it is not reasonable to be expected to arrive home after midnight and return early the next morning; it means having no personal time at all. The presumption that outer London Members can commute is simply wrong. Nor is it reasonable or appropriate to expect us to live out of suitcase. It would be a thoroughly miserable existence.
	If my accommodation allowance is discontinued, I shall have the following the options. I could give up my Westminster flat, which, incidentally, is an ex-Westminster council flat in a rather unlovely 1960s concrete block. It is nothing at all like the image that is created of second homes. It would not be the first choice to live in of many people whom I know.
	I could keep my constituency home and commute to Westminster, but that would mean having to reduce my working hours substantially to what other professions would consider normal but would be part-time for a Member of Parliament. It would certainly not be compatible with Whips Office hours.
	Alternatively, I could give up my constituency home and live in Westminster, so that I could continue to play a full parliamentary role. I would then have to visit my constituency daily on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. During recess, when most of my work is in the constituency, there would be an obvious problem of finding short-term furnished accommodation. None of those arrangements is acceptable.
	If outer London Members are excluded from future accommodation allowances, there will be a return to the days when only people with personal or family wealth could afford to represent outer London constituencies. The current MP's salary is not enough for an individual to run two homes, one of which is in central London.
	Treating MPs collectively with contempt has become a national game, and we have become public enemy No. 1. We have a vocation, not a job, which involves a total loss of personal privacy and a salary that compares badly with the civil service, quangos, local government, the police, the judiciary, the health service and other taxpayer-funded public servicesas well as the BBC, that politically neutral public broadcasting company. All those bodies have escaped the level of scrutiny to which Members of Parliament are being subjected. It is unjust that we have been singled out when many people in the publicly funded professions that I have listed earn four and five times as much as we do.
	The inevitable changes must be thought through properly. It is quite right that we await the results of the independent Kelly report, although I have reservations about whether a committee made up of people who have not experienced life in Parliament can truly understand the strange life that we lead.

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said, but not with his last main point, and not because we are a sovereign House. I ask him to reflect on this: if we cannot trust ourselves, and cannot be trusted by the British people to sort out our own pay and allowances, how on earth can we be trusted with the nuclear deterrent, the state of the economy and the other much more important things with which we are meant to be trusted? My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the sane point that the proposals may be very good, but may require adjustment. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle that if we are to adjust those proposals, we will have to do so with great care.
	When the Leader of the House appeared to accept the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, I thought that we would have an outbreak of real dignity and common sense in the House. Instead, we have had a scrappy, miserable debate, albeit illuminated by some exceptional speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave a heartfelt speech. How can Members on the Treasury Bench force through the amendment on Greater London Members having heard that speech? I noted that the Leader of the House kindly came to the Chamber to hear those remarks, and I hope that she will address the issue when she winds up.
	Having accepted the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, we cannot just go back to a sticking-plaster on the discredited system that is the Green Book. The Green Book is a discredited system, and the failure to accept that fundamental point for some time has got us into more and more problems. Various comments have been made about our allowances and salaries. That is the fundamental problem: what we claim, our expenses, have in fact become part of our remuneration, and the public will never accept that. They will also never accept the special tax rules that we give ourselves. Members ought to try explaining to a small business man in their constituency why we should have rules, with Revenue and Customs, that we would never dream of giving them. There is quite an argument for handing back to HMRC the whole question of what we get and what should and should not be taxed, so that we are treated like ordinary citizens, instead of treating ourselves as special.
	We must recognise that those fundamental problems have arisen because we have moved from an age of deference to an age of reference: an age when people respected institutions for what they purported to be, to an age when people, through the internet and the media, expect individual accountability and exposure in a way that was never accepted before. We are 20 years behind the rest of society in that respect. The denial in respect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, furthermore, was a crass own goal for which those responsible should take some responsibility. Voters are also angry because MPs appear to cost more and more but to do less and less: shorter hours, longer recesses, less and less power to scrutinise legislation properly, fewer and fewer votes on substantive issues and more and more decisions taken in Whitehall, Brussels and elsewhere.
	We must, however, take ultimate responsibility for the outcome. The advantage of the Kelly approach is that he will return to some fundamental principles, and we ought to approach these questions from first principle, instead of trying to patch up the existing system. What is the role of a Member? What does he or she require to do his or her job? What is it legitimate to expect the taxpayer to pay for? How should the system command public confidence?
	The great danger, for example, of instantly deciding that a panacea for one of our problems is the direct employment of our staff by the House is that it fundamentally misunderstands the role of a Member. We should be strengthening our ability to make independent judgments on behalf of our constituents and in the interests of our nation, instead of becoming part of a more and more amorphous corporation. We enter the House not to join the establishment but to challenge the establishment, and the independence of our arrangements in our offices is absolutely fundamental to that purpose. The Kelly commission must be made to understand that.

John Bercow: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). The debate has been good and stimulating and I want to add only three observations.
	First, I note that Sir Christopher indicates does he not intend to focus significantly on MPs' pay. He feels that it falls outwith his scope. My view is that it would make sense for him independently to consider pay, including, in the light of a series of comparators, the possibility of a significant increase in pay, accompanied by an absolute ban in future on outside interests. I think it would be good if Sir Christopher considered that.
	Secondly, I agree with the Leader of the House that agreeing to Sir Christopher's review should not, of itself, preclude any other decisions today. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that a referral for overall long-term decision making is not incompatible with dealing with some of the simpler and urgent matters today. They are not mutually exclusive. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said as recently as 1 April that agreement on some matters was needed now and that we should sort it. I agreed with him then and I agree with him now.
	My third point is perhaps an illustration of the secondthat there are some matters on which we can act immediately. A case in point is the requirement to disclose much more information about outside interests. That is a compelling point. I declare an interestI have one outside interest, which is listed in the register, but I am entirely open to the view that thou shalt declare more about it, and answer questions such as the following: What exactly do you do? When were you appointed? What is your role? How long do you devote to it? How frequently do you visit the company concerned? That seems perfectly reasonable. I acknowledge that there are those who believe it legitimate to spend day upon day or week upon week away from the House, earning vast sums of money, and that the public should not be entitled to know about it. They are entitled to that view, but I disagree with it.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	(1) That, in the opinion of this House, staff who work for an hon. Member should be employed by the House, as a personal appointment and managed by the hon. Member; and
	(2) That the House of Commons Commission shall consider this decision and make 5 recommendations for its implementation, including any transitional provisions
	which may be necessary, by 29 October 2009. (Chris Bryant.)
	 Amendment proposed: (a), leave out paragraph (1).( Mr. Heath)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 285.

Angela Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In some ways I would go further. I find it strange that a deficit should be allowed to run for so many years, if doing so is not in the interests of the company concerned.
	On March 2nd 2009, I went to the Visteon radiator plant in Basildon at the request of union representatives to meet members of Unite and Visteon management. At that time, staff were on a three or four-day week. The American parent company was demanding that the multi-million pound deficit, which had been growing since 2000, be erased within that financial quarter. I cannot see how that could be possible, after years of operating with a deficit.
	A number of issues were discussed at that meeting, and the management remained firmly of the view that the reasons for the financial problems were the legacy structure and the inadequate pace of change. I queried why, when more work was needed for Basildon, an order that had been fulfilled in Basildon until January 2009 was now coming into Basildon and then being sent out to Autopal, Visteon's sister plant in the Czech Republic. Surely, even if the costs were slightly higher for that one order, keeping work in Basildon would have brought the unit costs of all work down.
	The management, led by the former Basildon plant manager and then UK director, Steve Gawne, also claimed that the work force at Basildon had failed to support initiatives to cut costs, and repeatedly said that the problem was the terms and conditions of the work force, yet these were the very terms and conditions that the work force were told were guaranteed for life when they were transferred to Visteon.
	I also disputed the assertion that the unions and the work force had not supported cutting costs. I will give the House an example. The competitive cost rateCCRprogramme was agreed with the union in 2006. This was an agreement that all new staff brought in to fill the vacancies resulting from people leaving to go back to work at Ford would be employed on lower rates of pay. The notice from the then manager, Jason Field, said that if this were not agreed, the company would be left with no alternative but to source the business to Autopal, the Visteon plant in Czech Republic. That is the same place where Jason Field is now the manager and undertaking work previously done at Basildon.
	Given the management's insistence that they needed to cut staff costs, and that that was the only way to achieve cuts, I queried the most recent early retirement programme. Although Mr. Gawne insisted that everybody who had wanted early retirement had achieved it, a number of people have complained to me that the offer was significantly lower than in previous years. However, the CCR workersthose on the lower rates of paywho had perhaps only two years service were offered more than 10,000 to leave. I am not suggesting that that is a good principle, but if the real issue was the cost of the work force, surely the management would have been keen to keep the lower paid workers on rather than offering them a proportionally much higher payment than those taking early retirement. By contrast, one person with more than 12 years' service was offered a redundancy payment of just over 16,000.
	I also asked why there had not been more efforts to use the Visteon work force to undertake work being done by contractors at the plant. I did not a get satisfactory answer to that, or to my other questions. I do not have time today to go into all the detail of the discussions, but I left the plant feeling very queasy that the management were not committed to a long-term future and that the problems being experienced, while being exacerbated by the recession, were not due to the recession, as they go back much further.
	On 31 March, I spoke again to Steve Gawne, who told me that, immediately after our conversation, he would be informing the work force that the company was going into administration with immediate effect, as the US was unable to continue its financial support. Despite my concerns, I really had not anticipated that the company would be so brutal. As people turned up for work they were told to leave, and given just a few minutes to collect their belongings. I immediately spoke to the administrators, KPMG, who confirmed that of the 610 employees in the UK, all except 15 would be losing their jobs immediately, of which 158 were at Basildon. KPMG also confirmed that the pension plan was in deficit and that the Government would be required, through the Pension Protection Fund, to step in.
	Many of the workers at Basildon have been very long-term employees. It is not unusual to have 20 or even 30 years' service under both Ford and Visteon. My father worked at the same plant for 30 years. Becoming unemployed at such short notice without any redundancy payment or support has been the most dreadful shock imaginable. I should like to pay tribute to Basildon Jobcentre Plus. Most companies in these circumstances would offer advice and support before closing, but Visteon chose not to do so. Basildon Jobcentre Plus staff have done their best to help.
	Since then, there have been two meetings between the union leadership and Visteon regarding redundancy, and I can confirm that Visteon made an offer. Following the rejection of that inadequate offer, it has subsequently improved it. Having said that, while Visteon might consider that the offer complies with its newer terms and conditionsknown as the orange book or the pumpkin bookit does not comply with the original blue book terms and conditions that staff were told would apply for life when they transferred in 2000. I strongly believe that Visteon has behaved absolutely disgracefully.

Angela Smith: I am unclear whether there is a legal obligation and I want to look into that further. I am absolutely clear that there is a moral obligation.
	I welcome the fact that Ford of Europe's senior management have met Unite. However, I am disappointed to be informed that, so far:
	At these discussions, Ford acknowledged the concerns expressed and agreed to pass them on to senior management in Visteon Corporation.
	So far, to no effect.
	May I highlight to the Minister my five main areas of concern? Although I appreciate that he could not and should not be held accountable for the actions of a private company such as Visteon, I would be grateful for any advice or help he gave in trying to get to satisfactory answers to these questions.
	First, the issue raised by other hon. Members has been the links with Ford. Notwithstanding the above, it is hard for Visteon employees to accept that Ford has no responsibility towards them when their access ID cards display the Ford logo. I have N. Chapman's card here with me; it says Ford Motor Company, Basildon radiator plant. That was the card when this gentleman concerned lost his job. Long service awards are given out in the name of Ford, not Visteon. Employees get a discount through the Ford employees' scheme on Ford cars and have access to the Ford social club.
	I have spoken with Ford about that and it has explained that the long service awards presented to staff after 25 years' or more service should have the logos of both companies on to reflect the continuous service across both companies. It would be great if that were the case, but why does Richard Carey's awarda very nice crystal vaseafter 25 years' service not have any Visteon identification at all, only Ford's?
	Internal job vacancies for Ford were advertised at Visteon and those who were successful would go back to Ford under the flow-back arrangements. These are incredibly strong links between the two companies.
	There is also the issue of the company deficit. Visteon states that it
	sustained accumulative losses approaching 800 million through 2008.
	I think that the company wrote to the hon. Member for Castle Point on the same issue. As early as 2000, the plant manager at the time, Ron Stockwell, wrote to all employees at Basildon stating that the key challenges were to
	reduce cost and change our business strategy.
	I outlined earlier the deficits in 2006 and 2007; multi-million pound deficits. Why would any company maintain such a deficit for so long unless it suited the company to do so?
	Automotive Holdings Ltd. was set up on 4 February 2009 with directors from Visteon, including the UK director Stephen Gawne, one from the US and one from France. It is registered in the UK, with Visteon International Holdings in Michigan as the shareholder. It is based at the other Visteon site in Basildon. James Fisher from Visteon in the USA e-mailed me to say that the company
	was established as a potential legal entity solely for tax planning purposes. Visteon was exploring the ability to monetize
	not a word that I have come across before
	certain of significant tax losses and other tax attributes accumulated in the UK with the objective of generating cash for Visteon UK Ltd, however further planning concluded that such planning was not feasible.
	Why would a new company be set up in the Basildon area, with directors of Visteon UK, in February 2009, given that the plant was shut down in March?
	Other issues of great concern are something called project Protea, and outsourcing. I have briefly mentioned my concerns about work being outsourced from Basildon to the Visteon plant, Autopal, in the Czech Republic. It was shocking for workers to see work coming in from Korea only for it to go out again to Autopal.
	More alarming was a document I received marked Visteon Confidential and headed Project Protea, and dated 21 May 2007. It relates to Belfast plants and has implications for Basildon and Enfield. It says:
	Belfast is one of five UK manufacturing facilities which generate losses and contribute to the overall loss making performance of Visteon UK.
	It then says that the strategy is to
	Develop duplicate sources for all the Belfast product lines by the end of 2007. Stockpile service parts to avoid duplication
	and I highlight
	Engage Ford for assistance in transferring products to new locations,
	from Belfast.
	The product line summary refers to manifolds, and states:
	The growth in manifold business in Belfast is driven by a sourcing agreement between Ford and Visteon which enabled the exit of the oil and water pumps...Direction is to actively work with Ford to re-source all Manifold and ACA's business out of Visteon, to suppliers of Ford's choice.
	On the issue of fuel rails, it says:
	This business is marginally profitable in Belfast...The Sigma fuel rail is injection moulded and assembled in Belfast and under Project Protea it will be transferred to the Visteon Port Elizabeth facility.
	The concern must be that not only was work not being sought to be brought into the UK, but on the contrary Visteon UK was actively seeking to remove work from the UK and seeking support from Ford to do so.
	The other issue of great seriousness, worry and concern for all our constituents is pensions. As confirmed by KPMG, the pension fund is now in deficit. It would appear that existing pensioners of pensionable age still receive their full entitlement, but those who took early retirement, or have yet to retire, have been told to expect cuts of about 10 per cent. of their pension. The Government may have to step in to compensate those who have paid into the company pension fund.
	In August 2000, employees transferred to Visteon from Ford on 1 May 2000 were told that the new Visteon scheme would provide exactly the same benefits as the Ford fund. In January 2001, it could not have been made clearer:
	If you join The Visteon UK Pension Plan, then for future service from 1 April 2001, you will receive the same pension benefits as you would have received from your Ford Pension Fund based on the current and future provisions of that scheme.
	Management of the pension fund is causing enormous concern, and I ask the Minister to look at whether the fund has been mismanaged. I understand that the pensions regulator has been contacted and has received information. I appeal to the regulator to investigate the matter fully, and urge the Minister to support any such investigation.
	I will give the Minister one example of a complaint submitted. The trustee agreed to transfer the benefits of the members, together with assets totalling over 21 million, on 30 May 2007. That related, I think, to flow-back from Visteon to Ford. Visteon UK Ltd then made a special contribution of more than 7 million to the Visteon UK pension plan, so that in making the transfer it would
	not be reducing the security of the remaining Plan members.
	I have seen complaints about several similar situations whereby very large sums have been transferred from the Visteon pension fund into the Ford pension fund. The trustee of the Visteon pension fund has apparently said that such transfers did not affect the security of the remaining plan members. Why are we now seeing such a deficit in the pension fund, which does affect the security of existing plan members?
	My constituents who have worked for Ford and then Visteon are very loyal, very hard-working employees. They wanted to work with management to examine ways of cutting costs in order to increase the sustainability of their company and their employment. There was huge frustration among those who worked at Visteon that they were not able to work better with management to achieve those cost-cutting measures. All that the management would talk about, as I found too when I spoke to them, was staff terms and conditions. They were not talking about the terms and conditions of management, because the information that I have received is that the management got a substantial pay rise while they were trying to cut the terms and conditions of the staff.
	My constituents, such as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North, the hon. Member for Castle Point, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and others, have not been shown the same respect and dedication that they showed to their former employers. The Minister will understand my anger, their anger and the anger of the Members who are present about the lack of justice.
	I have highlighted a number of issues of concern. The promises made at the time of separation between Ford and Visteon have not been kept. I am talking not about one promise, but about repeated promises made in numerous items of correspondence and in documents. These promises of lifetime protection of terms and conditions, including redundancy, were not kept. There has been a curious deficit in the pension fund, a lack of any real action from the managers of Visteon in respect of the sustainability of the company and a lack of genuine co-operation with the union. The most serious thing is what appears to be the deliberate outsourcing and running down of the company, as highlighted in a secret document dated 21 May 2007 from Belfast. All those issues have to be addressed, and any help that the Minister can give my colleagues and me here tonight will be greatly welcomed in trying to fight this injustice.